BAJR Wrote:I suspect you would want to see - and this is the nub of most hesitation to join - the bad boys punished.

kevin wooldridge Wrote:It is a little sad that too many people appear to share that attitude.....but a degree of honesty is to be applauded. If more people were as honest it would save making excuses to deflect from the real reason they won't support the IfA...

Tool Wrote:I think you're being a little disingenuous there Kevin, implying that just because one person has a particular reason for not supporting the IfA, all others are being dishonest by not also giving that reason. There have been many valid reasons given here why people don't support it over the last few months, none of which appear to have been addressed or even acknowledged.

Sikelgaita Wrote:Where do I start.

I want to see a profession where the people in that profession, who are by and large passionate about archaeology, are not exploited by their employers because they are doing a job they love. I want to see a different career structure where the technical skills of experienced diggers are valued as highly as report writing skills. I want to see proper apprenticeship schemes put in place for diggers. I want to see better pay and conditions for everyone in archaeology. I want to see archaeological consultants who actually represent the interests of the archaeology not their clients. I want to see curators given the time and resources to actually do their jobs properly......

I cannot see how the CIfA will make a jot of difference to any of these.

kevin wooldridge Wrote:OK. Here is a challenge. Give me 10 reasons (5 if you are pressed) why yourself as a fairly new entrant to the profession are unable to support the aims of the IfA, If you feel the problems are not being addressed, list the problems and I will happily give you my view (Other views are of course available!!)

• There is a distinct impression from the people I speak to, some on this forum, and it's certainly the impression I get, that the IfA seems happy not to actively consult with those of us out in the field. These are the people who tend to experience the worst conditions, the worst of the hire-and-fire temporarily contracts, the lowest pay but without whom no-one else in the industry would have much data to work with. These are also the people who have the direct experience of many of the techniques and practices that become enshrined in the codes of practice (or whatever you want to call them), so are best placed to say whether they are actually practical, efficient and suit the archaeology being worked on. I'd like to see the IfA bend over backwards to reach out to those in the field (and please don't trot out the 'we have x,000 members, therefor you must be in a misguided minority': enough people in here have demonstrated a) that this segment of the industry is under-represented and b) how the figures can be highly misleading. To be representative of the industry, the IfA needs to embrace the entirety of the industry.
  
• The policies of the IfA appear to be biased towards outdated notions of how archaeology is practiced in the UK, and has not caught up with the fact that commercial archaeology is now the mainstay of active archaeology. As I've said before, a visible campaign to engage with the construction industry to find ways in which this little bit of planning law could be used to their advantage rather than being an expensive inconvenience would be a good move.
  
• I haven't seen nearly enough from the IfA to be convinced that they truly believe in public engagement. I've said more than enough on why I think that this is an imperative.
  
• Although I haven't seen it myself in my short career so this is anecdotal, it seems that the IfA don't uphold the standards they espouse nearly strongly enough both with regards ROs and individuals. This in itself casts doubt on the IfA's competence.
  
• To someone like me, where money is so tight, and also unlikely to be in a position to be publishing anything, there is a lack of a 'I support the aims of the IfA but am skint and not at a level that the P/MIfA grades cover' grade.
  
• Yes, there is an element of 'so what can they do for me?', given that they are not in a position to guarantee wages or any concrete method for increasing them, cannot address the temporary contract issue, don't/can't uphold best practice in archaeology because they don't apparently understand it themselves and can't/don't punish those who do it badly.
  

Tool Wrote:...cannot address the temporary contract issue.